WW XCVI - The Fell Winter of 2911

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by My Orient Pearl

But that seems to me just as much "stating the obvious" as Menel was doing earlier... which also makes me wonder why those who pounced on Menel for it (Pitch, my shining star, G55) didn't also pounce on Inzil.

Speaking for myself, I didn't notice it. Menel kept defending his point, and making a song-and-dance about it, so of course it got more attention.

This bothers me. The timing is interesting - G55 is the third person to jump on the "Menel is too obvious" bandwagon. And have you really not played enough with Agan to know that she refers to all roles as "she"?

G55 did cross with me, though. And I'm not sure how often she's played with Agan– maybe she really didn't know. Though that's rather beside the point– she must know Agan's a veteran player, anyway, and that "she", if a slip, would be the kind only a newbie makes– more than once, anyway.

EDIT:X'd with Agan.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Agan

The most dangerous is the one who survives, and it's often easier to survive if you stay out of the spotlight and play it smooth. That's why I prefer to vote for a quiet player if I have no better option. I'm still not quite as sceptical as Nog, though - I've seen bold wolves lead the village by the nose more than once or twice and survive to win.

On that note, Nog seems to have entirely forgotten about Shastawolf in the last game but one...

[Thinlómien]

So I'm here, I've read everything and I have to vote like in 10min... could have woken up earlier but no can do anymore. Also, I was not *so* sick yesterday, I don't need to be excused because of it. Shall post again very soon, now off to feed the tortoise and think...

[Thinlómien]

Okay, to be honest I have no idea. The only ones whose behaviour I find suspicious are Menel and Galadriel, both of whose behaviour I ALWAYS suspect, especially on Day1.

So let's go with gut-feeling:

++Aganzir

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Just because they wouldn't want to kill their little helper by accident, now would they?

True enough, but by the same token, I think they're going to care more than they normally would about whether or not they get lynched, too. That was my main point, since people who get a lot of attention early have a history of getting lynched.

Originally Posted by Aganzir

You've completely misinterpreted what I said. I laughed about being hypocritical because I said talking about the cobbler may be a sign of wolvery while I always do it myself, no matter my role. I didn't say Kath is suspicious for doing it but because of how she brought it up.

Fair enough, but then I'm a little confused by what you find suspicious. Is it just that Kath came out of the gate asking questions about the role, or what?

[Nogrod]

Pitch -> Nog
Zil -> G55
G55 -> Pitch
Menel -> Zil
Shasta -> G55 2
Agan -> Pitch 2
Lommy -> Agan

Six votes to come: Glirdy, Nerwen, Legate, Sally, Kath & me.


G55's twists and turns sure merit a second look and I still think Pitch looks suspicious. But with G55's vote on Pitch it looks less plausible they both are wolves (not impossible, naturally, but less plausible).

Of others I have too little to suspect them for the time being - and I will not vote for Menel on D1 when he's back in the game after such a long time - unless he starts to scream wolf: which is probably not going to happen as he has voted and left...

Be back a little later.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Popping in shortly, there seems to be (or was) rather nice discussion.

Ad G55's reaction to Menel-debate, I find it awkward. In the end, she decided not to vote him, but one can still look at it as "feeding suspicion".

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

There's a difference between being sensible and being sensible and obvious. Saying "wolves are bad" is also a pretty logical and sensible thing. Where I'm getting at, is that I get what you're saying about Menel's posts being true and substancial, but I also get the other side of it, that they are what is to be understood without having to say it.

I think he was saying a sensible thing, I mean, if we dissect everything, then everything is already a known fact, one way or another. Nothing new under the sun. Yet saying "if we keep mislynching due to certain people leading the discussion, we should turn our eyes on them" is a reasonable thing to say, so why shouldn't he say it.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I find Menel's posts kinda awkward; not because he's saying the obvious truth, but because of how hard he defends it. When people commented on how he posts (ie being obvious), he repeated his point again with elaboration and etc., but was no less obvious. It's not like anyone disagrees with what he says, it's how he says it, and this does not change from post to post. I'll keep in mind that he is back from a very big break, and unless there's some more substancial point against him I wouldn't consider him more suspicious than most.

I think he just continued clarifying, and I think he *did* clarify it a bit better later (close to the end of the first page) - taking out the core. I think what he says is a legitimate proposal of strategy, nothing groundbreaking perhaps, but I don't see a problem with it.

Anyway, other thing, Nog is standing out a bit to me, his reaction to Pitch being somewhat too jumpy.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Forgive me my silly question, but where do I pick a suspection by you on Menel? Aren't you now just admitting you tried out something? And if you admit you tried out something how come you think no one else ever tries out something as well? tsk-tsk.

Or should I vote you because you "made a point about Menel"? The reason behind that vote would be as good as yours...

And then he delves into it in several subsequent posts... I mean, we know Nog is eloquent, but is this necessary?

Also, his remarks about Menel earlier were more like "theoretical", now he calls it "crusade" - even though obviously he does not mean it that strongly, as he himself says, still from the rest of the post it seems he condemns Menel quite strongly ("totally overdone").

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So my problem with your "crusade" (sorry about that word) is that it is totally overdone and a bit misguided. There have been loud wolves trying to do that but they have been lynched soon enough basically every time. I mean anytime someone manages to convince others to lynch A or B and they turn out innocents that person gets lynched even if he is innocent (I should know that)... and actually that's the reason why the wolves love loudmouths who are wrong.

So it's been a long time I have seen any wolf trying to openly lead the village as they know it's their downfall as sooner rather than later they will be lynched.

But as to the last, I think there aren't really "open leaders", but there still can be vocal yet manipulative Wolves - which is the case where Menel's theory would apply too, I'd say, and in such a case it would be relevant. Like, it's not that a Wolf comes and says "I am the Representative of the village, let's all lynch Snow", I think that has never happened in my memory, but there might be nudging here and there, and if such a person posts a lot and actively, then it can have effect.

Ugh! And this again was far longer than I wanted... off...

Shall be back later still to vote.

[Nogrod]

Okay. I had to check back as to what Menel actually said, and the following is the thing making me uneasy with him:

Originally Posted by Menel

If there is a period of three or more Days in which only innocents are lynched, then we should look for a wolf among the most influential people during that time.

Now, first of all, if there are three Days we only lynch innocents - and the wolves score effectively during the Night - we have basically lost as the wolves only need to ask for the cobbler to vote with them on D4. In case we had chances on D4 (like ranger made a succesful save one Night) then I think it is essential we look at everyone as thoroughly as we can because that lynch decides whether the game continues or whether we lose. So any "let's lynch the influential people" default-setting is basically dangerous rather than helpful.

Secondly. Menel's "plan" (let's call it a plan then and not a crusade...) is based on faulty premises, that a) wolves always wish (or need) to lead the lynching, that b) the wolves only vote for innocents, that c) innocents are good at avoiding lynching other innocents, that d) the seer doesn't do her/his job.

An example: let's say we have two villagers. Villager A has been a strong advocat of two lynches which both have turned out innocents. Villager B has voted both times for a person who has not been lynched as B has been against the tide going for those lynched innocents.

Now which one is more probably a wolf? I'd put my money on B.

If we dilute ("homeopathisize" ) Menel's suggestions into "we should be aware of people who might give a little nudge here and there" like Legate seems to be doing, then we're of course making more sense, but that's actually only saying "look around" which I think we all try to do. Although we still face a problem which is that it is basically impossible for an ordo to see "a purposeful knowledge-based nudge" from "trying to make even a weak point based on hunches".

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

On that note, Nog seems to have entirely forgotten about Shastawolf in the last game but one...

And we all saw how well that worked out.